Latest news with #healthinsurance
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Why UNH Deserves a Spot in Your Dividend Watchlist
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) is a major health insurer and one of the Best Stocks to Buy for Dividends. A senior healthcare professional giving advice to a patient in a clinic. The company has faced setbacks this year due to billing concerns and rising costs, pushing its stock to multi-year lows. The stock is down by over 40% in 2025, so far. However, despite near-term challenges, the company remains a strong long-term pick. As a key player in controlling healthcare costs, its current issues are likely temporary and may not impact its future performance. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) is a large-scale company, generating over $400 billion in revenue last year and earning $14 billion in profit. With a payout ratio of just 35%, it has plenty of room to keep up regular dividend payments while still reinvesting in the business or handling economic challenges. The company has also increased its dividend every year since 2011, showing a strong commitment to rewarding shareholders. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (NYSE:UNH) offers a quarterly dividend of $2.21 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.93%, as of June 25. While we acknowledge the potential of UNH as an investment, we believe certain AI stocks offer greater upside potential and carry less downside risk. If you're looking for an extremely undervalued AI stock that also stands to benefit significantly from Trump-era tariffs and the onshoring trend, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure. None. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Medscape
9 hours ago
- Health
- Medscape
Supreme Court Ruling Preserves Access to Preventive Services
Health advocates welcomed a US Supreme Court decision announced Friday that preserves a federal mandate for insurers to cover, without copays, certain preventive medical tests and treatments. The Supreme Court split 6-3 in the decision announced Friday. While the court ruling was seen largely as a win for medical and consumer groups, some voiced concerns about its impact on the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary's power over an influential panel, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Anthony Wright, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Families USA, said the Supreme Court ruling beat back 'yet another challenge' to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was a win in terms of guaranteeing more access to care. "While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,' Wright said. Religious Objection to HIV Prevention Treatment The case stems from a complaint filed by Braidwood Management, a Christian-owned firm objecting to how a provision of the 2010 ACA has been implemented. The Texas firm wanted to exclude coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV and other preventive health services for religious objections. The ACA requires coverage without copay for tests and treatments that get 'A' and 'B' ratings from the USPSTF. The USPSTF has issued recommendations with these top marks for more than 40 tests and treatments, noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion in this case. Services with current 'A' and 'B' ratings from USPSTF include cancer and diabetes screenings, nicotine patches for adults trying to quit smoking, statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke, and physical therapy to help the elderly avoid falls, he wrote. Major Medical Groups Applaud Ruling The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society, and about 30 other patient and medical professional organizations applauded the Supreme Court decision in a joint statement Friday. In February, these groups had filed a brief with the Supreme Court, arguing in favor of the mandate. In it, these groups said almost 152 million people in the US were able to get access to preventive services without cost sharing in 2020 due to the mandate. Reducing insurance coverage for preventive services would 'lead to worsening patient outcomes, resulting in preventable deaths, and creating higher long-term medical costs,' said the groups in the brief. The key question before the Supreme Court in this case focused on the view of authority of the USPSTF. In the majority opinion, Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs sought to portray the USPSTF as an independent agency wielding 'unchecked power in making preventive-services recommendations of great consequence for the healthcare and health-insurance industries and the American people more broadly.' In fact, those challenging the ACA mandate asserted that, with respect to preventive-services recommendations, the Task Force members were 'more powerful' than even the US president or the secretary of the HHS, Kavanaugh wrote. That's not the case, Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. Instead, the USPSTF members serve at the will of the secretary of the HHS, who can remove them, Kavanaugh noted. In addition, federal law allows the HHS secretary to directly review and block USPSTF recommendations before they take effect, Kavanaugh wrote. Some Reservations Family USA's Wright noted how HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr recently replaced members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee as an example of his concerns. The American Gastroenterological Association called the Supreme Court ruling 'positive news for patient care protections.' 'The ruling reiterates the authority that HHS has over the task force and its decisions, and we remain vigilant considering the secretary's recent actions to other expert panels,' the AGA said Friday in a statement. 'We will continue to work with our coalition partners and champions to ensure patients continue to have coverage of essential preventive screenings.' The ACA mandate also has helped make cancer screening more palatable to younger patients, which physicians note is especially important given that more cases seem to be occurring earlier in life. National Institutes of Health researchers recently reported that the incidence of 14 cancer types increased among people under age 50 between 2010 and 2019. 'To convince healthy people to undergo a test when they're feeling fine to prevent a cancer that might or might not develop years in the future, it requires reducing barriers and taking away copays and providing insurance coverage,' Jatin Roper, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University and AGA spokesman, told Medscape in recent interview. Roper reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Wall Street Journal
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
About Those ‘Millions' Losing Medicaid
Senate Republicans have to rework provisions in their big budget bill to pass muster with esoteric parliamentary rules, but tune out the Democratic wishcasting that the entire project is in jeopardy. On the other hand, here's some Capitol Hill news worth knowing: The GOP bill isn't throwing all and sundry off their health insurance, no matter the media claims to the contrary. A Congressional Budget Office letter this week adds important explanatory details to the claim that 7.8 million more Americans won't have health insurance in 2034 because of GOP Medicaid changes. Democrats broadcast this CBO estimate to frighten voters that Republicans are locking vulnerable Americans out of hospitals. But here are the facts CBO offered to the GOP House Budget Committee. Of that 7.8 million, some 4.8 million are uninsured because they don't comply with the bill's part-time work requirement. This is a torpedo in the hull for the Democratic talking point that everyone on Medicaid already works. The bill asks able-bodied, prime-age adults without children to work or volunteer roughly 20 hours a week. The serious academic evidence suggests perhaps half of that able-bodied population isn't clearing that basic work bar. A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute is sobering: 'For Medicaid recipients who do not report working, the most common activity after sleeping is watching television and playing video games. They spend 4.2 hours per day watching television and playing video games, or 125 hours during a 30-day month.' In a healthier political culture, even Democrats would agree that men who decline to work shouldn't get free health insurance to check out of life. The real 'Call of Duty' is getting a job.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
Yahoo
19 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Wisconsin voters don't want to lose health coverage. Yet 96,000 will under Trump
Each election season, Wisconsin draws reporters from around the world eager to dissect the views of voters in a state that is increasingly seen as not only a bellwether for national trends, but a political battleground on which the fate of the nation depends. Yet despite our reputation as a battleground state, there is a surprising amount of agreement among Wisconsinites on a key issue of our day: health insurance. Over two-thirds of voters in our state support expanding eligibility for BadgerCare, the federal-state program that covers nearly 1.3 million low-income and disabled Wisconsinites, including 3 in 8 children. Polling from last fall suggests that seven in ten Wisconsinites favor lowering the costs of what residents pay in healthcare costs and ensuring that all Wisconsin residents have access to affordable, comprehensive health-insurance coverage. That includes majorities of voters who identify as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Understandably, Wisconsinites ––who in 2023 alone racked up more than $731 million in medical debt –– generally prefer policies which will reduce their skyrocketing healthcare costs. But one could be forgiven for not noticing just how much agreement there is among Wisconsinites. After all, Republican members of the Badger State's congressional delegation have tethered themselves to the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a nickname whose absurdity only serves to distract from its contents. Opinion: Sen. Joni Ernst said we're all going to die. Can we get decent health care in the meantime? To pay for extensions to tax cuts whose beneficiaries are primarily the wealthiest Americans, the legislation would cause roughly 16 million people across the country to lose health coverage by 2034. What does that mean for Wisconsin? Within ten years, roughly 96,000 fewer people in our state will have health insurance coverage for two reasons. First, the end of premium tax credits and changes to the Affordable Care Act's marketplace rules will cause at least 59,000 enrollees to lose coverage. For those that remain in the marketplace, premiums will skyrocket. In Wisconsin's 3rd Congressional District –– currently represented by U.S. Rep. Derek Van Orden –– premiums for a 60-year-old couple with a combined annual income of $82,000 will increase by over 300%. Second, due to changes in Medicaid policy –– namely the introduction of paperwork requirements that demand monthly recertification of employment status –– at least 37,000 Wisconsinites will also lose coverage. In fact, the real number could be far higher according to recent reports from the state. The vast majority of these coverage losses will occur not because those people aren't working: 73% of adults on Medicaid in Wisconsin are employed. Rather, as shown in states like Arkansas which briefly implemented Medicaid work requirements several years ago, over 18,000 people lost coverage in less than a year due to administrative hurdles deliberately designed to be difficult to clear. These are not work requirements, strictly speaking. Nor, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, do they have any meaningful impact on the number of people in the workforce. They are simply more red tape. Their supporters in Congress often claim that work requirements are meant only to eliminate 'waste, fraud, and abuse' from the program, not to disenroll eligible people. But this is an artful dodge. They are counting on the new Medicaid provisions to result in massive disenrollment; as the legislative math works out, massive dis-enrollments are necessary to generate the level of spending cuts needed to pay for tax cuts that primarily advantage the wealthy. Republican congressional leaders will also cite public support for work requirements in a recent statewide advisory referendum. This too is a dodge. Unlike many other states, Wisconsin does not require that legislative referenda be accompanied by information on the effects of proposed policy changes. Opinion: Trump gives off strongman pageantry with military parade we're paying for Vague wording on advisory ballot measures thus allows legislators to elicit their preferred response from voters without forcing them to confront the tradeoffs. Voters are shown only one side of the deal, promises of personal responsibility and cost savings, while the real consequences, like loss of coverage and increased red tape, remain hidden. If this assault on Wisconsin's health care succeeds, it will not represent the preferences of our closely divided electorate. The deeper one digs into the data, and into conversations in diners, clinics, and union halls across this state, the more it becomes clear: People want health care that's there when they need it, that doesn't bankrupt them, and that doesn't force them to navigate a labyrinth of paperwork. They're asking not for miracles but to be treated with dignity. That's worth fighting for, and something our elected leaders should not only respect, but champion. Philip Rocco is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University and the author of "Obamacare Wars: Federalism, State Politics, and the Affordable Care Act." This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: House Republicans support bill their WI constituents oppose | Opinion
